China Refuses To Back Down On General's Nuclear Threat Over Taiwan

China refused to retract statements made by a leading general that it would use nuclear weapons to repulse US military intervention over Taiwan
despite Washington's criticism of the remarks.
But Beijing insisted that it would resolutely seek to resolve the Taiwan issue in a peaceful manner.

"We will never tolerate 'Taiwan Independence', neither will we allow anybody with any means to separate Taiwan from the motherland," a foreign
ministry spokesman told AFP.

"We hope the United States will fulfill its commitments (on Taiwan) with concrete actions and join efforts with China to maintain the peace and
stability across the Taiwan Straits."

The spokesman was commenting on statements made this week by General Zhu Chenghu, dean of China's National Defense University, who said China could
launch a nuclear attack on "hundreds" of US cities if Washington interfered militarily in the Taiwan issue.

"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond
with nuclear weapons," Zhu.

His comments were reported by the Financial Times and the Asian Wall Street Journal, which attended a briefing with the general organised by a private
Hong Kong organisation, the Better Hong Kong Foundation.

"If the Americans are determined to interfere (then) we will be determined to respond," said Zhu.

"We ... will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds
... of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."

US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack on Friday said the remarks attributed to Zhu were "unfortunate" and hoped they did not reflect the
views of the Chinese government.

"I haven't seen all the remarks but what I've seen of them, I'll say that they're irresponsible," McCormack told reporters.

China's foreign ministry spokesman said that Zhu's comments reflected his personal views, but refused to clarify whether such views also represented
the position of the government.

"My statement is clear, how you interpreted it is up to you," he said.

"We firmly believe it is in the interests of both China and the United States, as well as in the interests of the peace, stability and development of
the Asia Pacific region and the whole world, to oppose Taiwan independence and maintain peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits," he said.

"We will firmly abide by the principles of peaceful reunification and one country two systems and we will express the deepest sincerity and exert the
greatest efforts to realize peaceful reunification."

China and Taiwan split in 1949 at the end of a civil war but Beijing still claims it as part its territory and has repeatedly threatened to invade if
the island formalises its 56-year separation with a declaration of independence.

In March China adopted a law allowing it to use force against any secession moves by Taiwan, triggering concerns in Washington and raising tensions in
the region. The United States is bound by law to offer the island the means of self-defence if its security were threatened.

Meanwhile, the commander of the Guangdong Military District of the People's Liberation Army, Liu Zhenwu, departed China Saturday at the head of a
six-member delegation for a visit to the United States at the invitation of the US Pacific Command, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

Why not start facing up to the fact there are other world powers with their own way of doing things and the defence powers to counter any outside
influence at the source.

Though China has challenged any county's authority to interfere between itself and Taiwan, this is not something new, only the amount of force China
is willing to admit they would use in stopping outside interference.

Its a case where China may win the battle but is seriously technologically inferior to the US by hundreds of years.

I feel the US has delivery means (other than rockets and Subs) that can't be detected until the there's a big mushroom..

China must be mad if they used nukes against the USA, there would be nothing left of China after that action, I'm sure USA would obliterate China to
smithereens TBH as USA has alot more nukes to-do the job with, let alone any secret weps USA has and I'm sure they have them whatever they be, and
also is China so sure it nukes can actually hit USA? you think USA does not have an anti nuke shield up and running yet? i have a sneaky suspicion USA
has some sort of laser defence anti nuke system running right now at this moment and probably space weapons too so it be Chinas down fall for sure,
I'm sure if USA has no defence against nukes which i highly doubt if you look at money being spent and thats public amount not secret amount, it
would still survive Chinas attack and it would wipe China off map for sure as a show of strength.

Why does America have to defend Taiwan? Whats so important about Taiwan that we risk Nuclear war over it. I'm a Brit so i don't understand the
American thinking. I always thought Taiwan was where the ousted Government of China went when it turned communist. Its still more Chinese than
American id let them have it back.

where the heck u been xmotex, u havent read the doctrines on the use of nuclear weapons?

Really, where? Can you find me a reference for this?

AFAIK, the US has never had a "no first use" policy, originally due to Soviet numerical superiority in Europe during the Cold War. But we've made a
point of keeping our options open since. I can't find anything suggesting that the lack of a "no first use" policy has changed. Not that I think
China or Russia would not drop their "no first use" policies the moment their backs were up against the wall.

That's good to hear, but the pessimistic side of me thinks about how rules don't apply in all-out war. If the situation were desperate enough, do
you think any country would care about the war crimes and such that it would face following the war (especially, keep in mind, that this is a
NON-WESTERN nation we're talking about here that didn't have any knights and code of honor junk in its history)?

OK, as a ordinary chinese citizen, I don't think General Zhu's words represent the policy of government. His Nuclear Threat should not to be
regarded as an official warning, but rather one voice of some leaders in PLA. Frankly, this point of view has some definite domestic audience, who are
too simple in politics, sometimes naive. In fact, most of the population hold an opposition again Zhu's view, because it will have a ruining effect
on their daily life when it comes true. As well as to US people. Am I right?

But there's one thing clear and important that CCP will not tolerate Taiwan independence certainly. CCP has educated people many years that Taiwan is
a part of China. If one day, CCP fails to stop Taiwan's separation, it will surely lose the support from the nation, lose the governing party role.
As a result, China may split into seraval parts again. To be honest, I don't think the party can afford such cost of Taiwan independence.

Taiwan is also very important in the global strategy of America. It's impossible for US to look on with folded arms when the fight occurs across
Taiwan straits. However, why not consider more about how to avoid that? It is more emergent than how to win the fight. I really hope the 2 powers
including Taiwan, can find a balance point on this issue.

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Why does America have to defend Taiwan? Whats so important about Taiwan that we risk Nuclear war over it. I'm a Brit so i don't understand the
American thinking. I always thought Taiwan was where the ousted Government of China went when it turned communist. Its still more Chinese than
American id let them have it back.

70% of Taiwanese don't want to reunify with China. Taiwan is democratic. And Taiwan is like a very large aircraft carrier, China would love to
have it just for it's strategic value.

As a professor and the director over China's National Defense University Defense Strategic Institute and a general in the People's Liberation Army,
Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu said at a briefing to foreign reporters that China would resort to nuclear force should the U.S. intercede in a Taiwan Straits
conflict. He added that China was prepared to sacrifice the cities east of Xi'an (implying six major cities with 33 million people) and warned that
the U.S. "will have to be prepared for hundreds of cities that will be destroyed."

In a letter addressed to Zhou Wenzhong, the Chinese ambassador to the U.S., Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo criticized Zhu for making such
comments. "For a senior government official to exhibit such tremendous stupidity by making such a brazen threat is hardly characteristic of a modern
nation," the letter said.

Zhu subsequently claimed that he was merely expressing his personal views. However, his comments signaled a threat to the U.S., Taiwan, and above all,
the Chinese people. If we look back in history, Zhu's comments are representative of the tyrant Mao Zedong.

One cannot help but wonder, why the CCP after all these years continues to walk in Mao's footsteps, failing to show any regard for human life. What
could be more important than human life? If nuclear war breaks out, how many innocent lives in the U.S. and China would be lost?

Every time I see some topics about china will be in war with US.I just want to

Those senior officials mostly have secret account in US or European banks, some of also send their child there. next time, when met such threatening,u
can just check and freeze such bank accounts,and tell them that money will be forfeited, they will back down immediately.(that violates the
rules,but believe me,that will be effective:lol

They don't care the lives of ordinary chinese people,but certainly they will care about their money,don't they

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.